Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order?

[Marion Morrison]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with what I posted?

China has been getting quite imperialistic.

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with what I posted?

China has been getting quite imperialistic.

China is a world power. Now, how does the video you posted have anything to do with a "growing aggressive Japan"?

 

[Unkotare]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

Yet you want us to pull back. What do you think the consequences of that are going to be?

Are you British?

 

[Marion Morrison]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with what I posted?

China has been getting quite imperialistic.

China is a world power. Now, how does the video you posted have anything to do with a "growing aggressive Japan"?

China's imperialistic habits in the South China sea are certain to provoke conflict.

 

[Disir]

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with what I posted?

China has been getting quite imperialistic.

China is a world power. Now, how does the video you posted have anything to do with a "growing aggressive Japan"?

China's imperialistic habits in the South China sea are certain to provoke conflict.

So, it has nothing to do with the "growing aggressive Japan" then.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with what I posted?

China has been getting quite imperialistic.

China is a world power. Now, how does the video you posted have anything to do with a "growing aggressive Japan"?

China's imperialistic habits in the South China sea are certain to provoke conflict.

So, it has nothing to do with the "growing aggressive Japan" then.

I'm going to leave your thread now. Have at it. Unsubscribed.

 

[Disir]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

 

[Andylusion]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

 

[Andylusion]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

 

[Unkotare]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

You "promise"?

???

 

[ThirdTerm]

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

Australia is not a party to these island disputes but many Asian countries are, including Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines and so on. Asian countries do not want Aussie help because the military power of Australia is minute compared to that of America and China. Even Japan has twice more military aircraft than Australia. Australia should stay out of the conflicts in Asia, except for hosting few hundred US soldiers in Australia’s tropical north, which would not offend the Chinese too much. Moreover, the market situation concerning China could change drastically under the Trump administration, which would impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China.

 

[Andylusion]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

You "promise"?

???

Yeah. I'm absolutely convinced, based on the moves China has made into building man made islands, and staking a claim to existing islands that Japan has had for over 100 years, and their renewed effort to form a fleet of ships that can at least compete with US ships, and their abuse of Hong Kong lately, I have no doubt that if we were not there, they would make an aggressive move, to show the world they are not to be taken lightly.

Now I suppose we could debate about what aggressive move they would take, but it seems clear that Japan is not a country they would fight with... yet.... and the only other option for showing their military strength, that would be worth taking (in their mind at least), is Taiwan.

If we were to pull back, I'm convinced they'd do it.

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

 

[Unkotare]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

What "unification"?

 

[Disir]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

What "unification"?

White Paper < Publications & Data < Home
Korean Reunification and U.S. Interests: Preparing for One Korea | Brookings Institution
Remarks by President Obama and President Park of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Conference

 

[Unkotare]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

 

[Unkotare]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

What "unification"?

White Paper < Publications & Data < Home
Korean Reunification and U.S. Interests: Preparing for One Korea | Brookings Institution
Remarks by President Obama and President Park of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Conference

People have been "preparing" for it since 1950. That doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the fewer problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

Islam Bankrupted Will Wilt

All the powerful nations should unite in partitioning Muslim oil. China should be allowed to extend its presence and confiscate the oil of Brunei and Indonesia.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

One-Sided Alliance

The Taiwanese wouldn't send troops to help us out in Vietnam, so let them sink.